If Labour make private schools charge VAT then they should allow new grammar schools to be created

[iPaddy]

I live in an area with zero grammars, no real choice in secondaries other than (often failing) local comprehensives or private.

I appreciate the arguments against private schools (creates unfair advantage) but what about areas with grammars? That's also an advantage. I'd love the option of a grammar school for the kids locally. The bright ones are being let down by the current situation. Has Labour said how they will address that?

That wasn’t my question. I take it the answer is no.

But here’s a government report showing unequivocally that good schools - primary and secondary - cause house price increases. The pattern is perfectly clear.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82a832ed915d74e3402e69/House_prices_and_schools.pdf

No doubt some of that pattern is driven by grammars. But the rest is primaries and non-selectives.

And that report is about increases, not relative purchase prices. There will be catchment areas for sought-after non-selective schools where much housing (but not all of course: social housing is found everywhere, for example) are very expensive in the first place.

There is a note in the exec summary that says that it cannot be concluded that performance is due to wealthier incomers. But since it follows a comment that the children of better-off families are more likely to do well academically and cause higher scores (paraphrasing), that can only mean that the relatively wealthy are already there and are replaced by the relatively wealthy when houses are sold.

None of this is at all surprising. There are any number of threads on here about choosing to buy in areas with good state schools. I’m not sure why you would argue otherwise.

’Colonising’ doesn’t mean ‘to the exclusion of any children from poorer families’, any more than grammar selection excludes all poorer children.

’Colonising’ doesn’t mean ‘to the exclusion of any children from poorer families’, any more than grammar selection excludes all poorer children.

Ah, I see, shifting the goal posts. Can you name some?

And if you’re interested in low income families getting access to the best schools, isn’t it a concern that grammar schools are excluding a higher proportion of them than desirable comps?

That’s not shifting the goalposts. It’s pointing out that your self-imposed definition (as I understand it) is wrong.

“Self-imposed definition”?

The proportion of kids on PP in a school isn’t something I’ve come up with, it’s a well-understood metric on the government website. You can’t dismiss it just because it doesn’t suit your view that house prices are more exclusive to school intakes for lower income households than entrance exams.

Sorry, I didn’t answer this:

And if you’re interested in low income families getting access to the best schools, isn’t it a concern that grammar schools are excluding a higher proportion of them than desirable comps?

My point is that grammars do so now because there are so few of them. If grammars were expanded the stats would change. The less well off would have greater opportunity for selective schooling.

I certainly don’t think non-grammars need be poor. The money from VAT on private school fees could pour in to them disproportionately, if that would help. If it wouldn’t help, because behaviour was bad, interest in learning low and disruption high, you’re back to the problem of comprehensives failing academic children.

Self-imposed definition of ‘colonise’, obvs.

WhileMyDishwasher,

It is simply not true that the more grammars there are, the closer their intake will become to representing the local population in terms of deprivation.

Look at Kent - a fully selective county, so a microcosm of what you are talking about. Compare grammars and secondary moderns serving the same community - the grammar %PP is always lower and the secondary modern %PP always higher.

Another example would be Gloucestershire, because it contains areas with many grammars (Gloucester, Stroud), areas with one (Cheltenham) and areas with significant commutes to any grammars. Gloucester and Stroud have very big gaps between the %PP of grammars and other schools. Cheltenham has a mix, each non-grammar school reflecting the characteristics of each catchment because it also contains a ‘mc destination secondary’, but it is notable that even that school has double the %PP of the grammar. The rest of the county has schools whose %PP reflects its catchment.

So, in contrast to your assertion, areas with more grammars have a more significant difference between the grammars and other schools in terms of %PP (a statistical measure of deprivation) rather than more grammars leading to reduced social selection.

(On the other hand, I would be completely in favour of there being an enormous number, even a country’s worth, of schools that ‘selected’ those 90-95% with needs that can be met within mainstream schooling, and then funds being poured into a big expansion of Special Schools, short stay schools and units within mainstream for those children whose needs cannot, as well as a huge expansion of expert medical, family, social and specialist SEN support both for those special schools and the mainstream ones. You can call the mainstream schools grammars if you would like to, if that makes it more palatable than calling them comprehensive)

If you chuck in much greater expectation of behavioural standards and more action against disrupters, including exclusions, with money put into referral units (plus greater support first) I’ll sign your policy.

👍

Short stay schools are another name for PRUs, so yes.

For schools to be able to refer children whose behaviour affects the learning of others to experts, who are well funded, immediately available and take ownership of the problem (including supporting the young person’s family, referrals to health, social services and SEN diagnosis as required) is what is needed.

‘Higher expectations of behaviour’ sounds as if you think the school is at fault in not wanting good behaviour, rather than them being totally deprived of the resources and support (both financial and in terms of eg parental backing, political will and public rhetoric ) they need to do anything about it.

Removing the Ofsted penalty for exclusion, if that exclusion is demonstrably reasonable, for example, might be useful…..

I live in a wholly selective area. Most children in my small market town go to either the grammar or the high school (aka the secondary modern). The schools are less than a mile apart. The town is very mixed, on first glance very middle class and affluent, but on the edge of an area of significant social deprivation. The grammar has less than 1% SEN and 7% FSM. The High school has 40% FSM. I repeat, they have the same catchment. So unless you think disadvantaged children are inherently less clever then there is something going on.....

As opposed to our S London comprehensive which has more than 32% on FSM, nearly 15% with SEN support. A much higher than national average of ESOL.

This school achieves higher than the national average in Progress 8, 5 GCSEs at grade 5 and above including English and maths, and EBacc.

The school has a very wide demographic including some young people involved in and at risk of gang crime whilst still being the top local choice for middle class parents who move nearby to get a place, and sends numerous top set kids (from that broad demography ) to Oxbridge and sought after Unis and courses.

It isn’t ‘leafy’ and it isn’t alone in this borough, or neighbouring borough, in educating an inclusive intake of children to their potential.

What is the obstacle for pushing for universal access to effective comprehensives?

I did always want my kids to be pushed, extended, challenged, but now that they are safely doing well at Uni I can see so clearly, and more and more urgently as the COLC divides and polarises society, that I want good education and maximum potential for all. I don’t want my best friend’s slow maturing summer born boy chucked in a school with fewer science and language options just because he wasn’t ready for the 11+ (he was upped from lower/middle sets to top at 14 and just graduated with a first from a RG Uni).

@VineRipened I agree with you-although I do question the use of the word "chucked" And I do wish that these threads weren't always about the needs of high achievers.

What I find quite difficult to grasp is that over a quarter of children in England/ Wales (26.62%) are growing up in families earning less £15,000 PA FSM requirement. This as the Unemployment rate is around 3% and given that most families are two parent ones. This assumes that many of these families only have one parent working Part- Time. I have previously seen the numbers of FSM children in the country at 26.62% without really grasping what it means. This is absolutely shocking, but it is not the fault of Grammar Schools nor is it their responsibility to attempt to put it right.

For the record no Political Party have a clue in reducing the FSM rate and getting these children out poverty , unless you assume £20 a week more is the answer. That is probably about the difference for a poor family between a Conservative and Labour Government. Statistically £20 a week rise might mean families are not in poverty ! However, that is just tinkering at the edges of a problem that i think is not solvable.

DCs grammar offers choice of 4 modern languages which are then set so bilingual kids are extended, Latin and highest Science sets x 2 and most importantly top 3 or 4 Maths sets do the additional Maths GCSE as well as the standard one. Sorry but for most of the kids a 9 at standard GCSE maths is a given and they get to that level by end of year 9 in the highest sets. So they need the extension of the extra Maths GCSE and they go on to do Further Maths A level and we need these kids to do well as a society.

Very bright children have needs too. And lots of standard comps do not cater properly to those children. With lots of funding and great teaching and big schools it could be achievable. However, in most schools around the country it is not actually achieved. Those kids deserve better too.

Tbf, PP is not the same as current FSM eligibility.

Under ‘Ever 6’, families retain PP if they have been eligible for FSM at any point over the last 6 years, are in LA care or are previously looked after children (eg many adopted children). A lower rate is paid for children of Services families to reflect impact of relocation, long absences etc.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium/pupil-premium#pupil-eligibility

Families of children with severe SEN often fall into PP, due to the difficulties of meeting the needs of their children while working, and the extreme difficulty of finding suitable wrap around care for them.

That rate will include forces, looked after children and 'ever 6' so children who were eligible in the 6 years previous.

So not all 26% will be on any given day earning less that that.

@VineRipened- the London super comps attract the young very bright dynamic teachers and they also have a culture of support from existing staff and are typically in those academy trusts with CEOs on 400k a year. Those super comps are never going to be replicated in that format across the country, staffing alone is an issue. So how do you propose to bring this formula to deprived areas? Extra salaries and free housing for teachers? How are you going to get great driven teachers to move there?

London raised the - once woeful - quality of its comprehensives through investment (still the best funded area in the country, by far) and through political will and motivation (the London Challenge), though it does also benefit from its ethnic diversity and obvious employment opportunities, which is not replicable in eg many deprived coastal towns.

As teacher salaries increasingly fail to keep pace with urban rents, and numbers of school age children in London shrunk post-pandemic and through birth rate changes, it will be interesting to see to what extent London can retain those dynamic teachers.

Will it be become dependent on a hamster-wheel of short term new graduates who join their uni friends in houseshares in their early 20s but gave to move elsewhere when wanting to have their own home or start a family? Do schools function well with no truly experienced teachers?

It's always difficult to discuss education in general terms because the system (and I use the word advisedly) in England varies so much from county to county and area to area. Our children's experiences, and indeed our own, can be so different that it's akin to comparing apples with pears much of the time.

The issue I have with the 11+ is that 10 is far too young to separate out children academically. There is plenty of robust research indicating that the proportion of DCs who achieve top grades throughout primary and secondary schooling is tiny. It's usually put at 2-2.5%. Way more common is for DCs to experience peaks and troughs in their educational achievements.

With this in mind, making long-term decisions about which DCs are suited to an academic education and which would be better off pursuing less academic options when they are 10 years old is really bad practice.

OK, I can see that London does have advantages of scale that is not replicable in other areas.

However - if Further Maths can be taught in a Grammar school down the road from the High School, why couldn't it be taught to those same kids by those same teachers in top set classrooms in the same school? Where late developers and the children of parents who didn't support them to pass the 11+ could also take part?

And if dynamic talented teachers are reluctant to move to deprived areas with a lower density of schools for their professional development etc, then how do Grammars in deprived areas (plenty of deprived areas in Kent) attract talented teachers?

I am not saying that these are not issues, but 'not achieved' doesn't necessarily mean 'not achievable' does it?

Fair point that London schools benefitted from investment and political lobbying. Exactly! Surely that proves the need for investment - the investment that has supported London comps to succeed. That's what schools everywhere need! For pupils of all abilities! (not all London comps are good, of course... but actually lots of Grammar schools add nothing beyond reflecting the ability of the cohort)

As for attracting teachers - I would listen to what teachers most value. And work at providing it.

Anecdotally what my teacher friends and family say is that the workload is enormous, the management too heavy handed and prescriptive and not enough support - in and out of school - for those with additional needs. Oh, and bolshy parents, of kids of all abilities so I doubt Grammars will avoid them.

My brother is a teacher in an area of economic and cultural deprivation. What prompted him to move schools to one an extra 10miles drive away was micro management and heavy handed targets from a 'superhead' with no teaching experience and apparently little liking for kids. My brother is in a subject with an acute recruitment problem, and had been identified in Ofsted reports at 2 different schools as offering inspirational and effective lessons. He lives in an area of deprivation (educationally - nice scenery), has done for 40 years and won't move - it was the school culture instilled by Gove et al that made him move jobs.

I do think disadvantaged children are inherently less " clever" in terms of what is measured in the 11+. Learning potential is at least 50% genetic. Clever parents tend to have better paying jobs. This is one study that refferences this :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ and a graph which shows the heritability increases over the lifespan.

Massively unpopular view completely expect to be taken to pieces for it.